The disturbed magnetic area I mentioned yesterday has finally turned into what appears to be a real sunspot, but it is quite small:
Since magnetograms weren’t available to Galileo, Wolf, and Maunder, I wonder if a spot this small would have been detected in their time? Perhaps many of the spots in the period of the Maunder minimum were just to small to detect?
The solar flux is still quite low at 69, so we have a fairly quiet sun.
UPDATE: The spot remains without a number, and as seen (or not) on the latest SOHO MDI image, it is fading from view. It remains visible on the magnetogram. SIDC has a writeup about it here.
I accessed the SOHO Near Realtime Data at NASA and have 1024×1024 animations for MDI Continuum and MDI Magnetogram images from 2008/04/11 to present. Since early this morning the sun-speck is only clearly visible in the MDI Magnetogram images. In today’s MDI Continuum images you can only discern the sun-speck by its motion as a slightly off color single pixel in a 1024×1024 filed. At this time it is fading into the background. SWPC should have called it yesterday when it was still clearly visible. As I speculate earlier, a posthumous elevation to sunspot status. Reminds me of the hurricane NOAA discovered last year, two months after it was over. If your predictions are off manufacture new events. Well, there is a limit to how many times they can do this. From the graphics at SolarCycle24.com everyone in the US is falling into line. Interestingly Belgium has not yet tagged the sunspot but I am sure they will.
http://sidc.oma.be/images/combimap800.png
Twenty-two years ago I suspect this would have been a non-event. Given SWPC’s ability to identify events which would have gone unnoted in the past, how can we compare current data with the historic record? It will be interesting to see what sunspot count is assigned.
I will see if I can get the very large animated GIF files uploaded.
According to solarcycle24.com SWPC gave it a value of 11 (10+1) which I believe is the lowest score which can be assigned under the scoring system. The event is automatically scored a 10 and then a 1 for each spot which can be identified. I don’t believe the scoring system was even intended to grade something this small. Belgium is now updated with the 990 number.
No luck finding a “free” hosting service which will upload 15MB GIF files. I would appreciate any tips.
Mike
Boy, they sure are desperate. All indices show as though nothing was there.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html
But, I guess a spot is a spot, no matter how small.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but a spot can’t be numbered unless it is also observed from other sources around the world for confirmation. I remember reading that somewhere.
(Off topic, but I’ve just been watching the German TV report from ARD, linked to by Pierre Gosselin yesterday, the 14th, at 11:48:19.
Pretty standard “We’re all doomed! doomed!” stuff – complete with a cuddly polar bear, melting glaciers, ever warmer winters etc. Curiously, Schellnhuber completely forgot to mention the bitterly cold winter we had in Germany in 2006 – the coldest in living memory, that seemed to go on for ever.
Come to think about it, that’s probably because that was “Weather” and so can be ignored , as opposed to the last 2 mild winters – which are clearly “Climate”, and thus a taste of things to come).
Mike: http://www.box.net – I think their free ‘Lite’ service allows pretty big files.
Paul: Nice data re: TSI and snn. Now if you can add cosmic ray measures taken at the planetary level to demonstrate the reverse relationship between solar hi/low output and planetary low/hi bombardment, that would be cool.
Any chance we can get decadel ocean stuff too?
I’ve got a problem calling this an official spot with a number and everything. How long ago would this have not even been seen at all? Which immediately begs the question: Is the increase in sunspot activity in the last half of the 20th century real, or do we just have better methods to see spots we couldn’t see before? Kinda like the mythical increase in tornadoes, when it’s really just better radar allowing us to identify more of them.
Sunspot numbers
Michael Ronayne wrote:
“According to solarcycle24.com SWPC gave it a value of 11 (10+1) which I believe is the lowest score which can be assigned under the scoring system. The event is automatically scored a 10 and then a 1 for each spot which can be identified. ”
One might think that the relative sunspot number (or Wolf number) is given by R = 10*g + f, where g is the number of sunspot groups and f the number of individual spots. In that way, one single spot would indeed count for 11, as it is one group + one spot.
But actually the formula is R = k(10*g + f) where k is a factor used to reduce R to what would be seen if a telescope were used having the same size as the small instrument used by Wolf. Generally, k is smaller than 1. This is why values of R between 0 and 11 are possible. For instance, SIDC (Belgium) gives R = 7 for the dates 3 to 5 August 2007.
For 2008-04-13 and 2008-04-14 I merged the MDI Continuum and MDI Magnetogram images in chronological order and effetely created an animated Blink Comparator between the Continuum and Magnetogram images. On the leading eastern edge of the magnetic anomaly there is a tight black spot at the center of the advancing vertical lines of magnetism. This is exactly where the Continuum image shows the sunspot to be. As you Blink between the two images you can just barley track the sunspot. Without the Blink Comparator I would never have been able to track the sunspot after the afternoon of 2008-04-14. I am using the highest resolution (1024×1024) images which NASA makes available.
On 2008-04-14 between 16:05 and 16:15 it looks like a second sunspot attempt to form over a magnetic spot to the west of the leading edge. The first spot was already fading in the Continuum image and the second sunspot appeared to fail within hours.
NASA is very punctual about making near-real-time and daily compresses archives available. The daily compressed archived are generally available within 10 minutes after midnight NASA time.
This has been a very useful exercise and I will be ready for the next one!
Load the following animation to see the event which occurred on 2008-04-14 between 16:05 and 16:15 where a second sunspot was attempting to form. For best viewing you may need a high-res LCD monitor.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4360/sunspeckmdiigrmagblinkpg6.gif
In IE v6 and v7 you should be able to expand the image to its full 1024×1024 size, even if it doesn’t fit on the screen. You only need to view the upper left corner.
.
To stop the animation press “Esc” to resume press “F5”.
The full animation which is much too big to upload here is quite impressive. I am sure the boys and girls at NASA has many wonderful toys much better then this.
Mike
This is an earlier comparison when the sunspot was larger and clearly visible. There is approximately a one hour difference in time between the two images which is why there is a small displacement.
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3599/sunspeckmdiigrmagblink2tq3.gif
Mike
Jean Meesus:
This formula you report is not the SESC formula to which many of us are accustomed.
A Blast From The Past
I went into NASA SOHO archives to download and examined the high resolution (1024×1024) images for the first SC24 sunspot #981 which was first observed on 2008/01/04 and persisted for three days. Here are the results.
Images used in NASA Press release 2008-01-04 14:24 & 14:28
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3149/sunspot200801041424ab6.gif
Best images from 2008-01-05 06:24 & 06:26
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/1548/sunspot200801050624or8.gif
In the image from 2008-01-05 there are three clearly desirable sunspots and three to four smaller sunspots.
Note this little gem in the NASA press release,
Solar Cycle 24 Begins
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/images/solarcycle24/newspot.jpg
“Sunspot 981 was small–only about as wide as Earth, which counts as small on the grand scale of the sun–and it has already faded away. But its three day appearance on Jan. 4-6 was enough to convince most solar physicists that Solar Cycle 24 is underway.”
If sunspot #981 was “small” how should NASA characterize sunspot #990?
Mike
Hi,
I ask Leif Svalgaard and this is what his answer was over at CA comment #120.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2983#comment-235992
Mt. Wilson is reporting no sunspots for Tuesday April 15, 2008.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/cur_drw.html
Look at the four day record.
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080412.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080413.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080414.jpg
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr080415.jpg
Activity was reported only on 2008-04-13 and 2008-04-14, which is what I am seeing in the SOHO images. This is a 24 hour wonder and the region is back to being an active plage but still has a sunspot count of 11 from some sources. I ran an animated Blink Comparator for all SOHO images for 2008-04-15 and could find no sunspots, Mt. Wilson is correct. I will concede NASA an active SC24 plage and one pathetic sunspot between 2008-04-13 and 2008-04-14 with an undeserved score of 11, but the rules are the rules. The plage could always develop another sunspot so it must be watched.
There is a nice write up on Mt. Wilson. Their big problem is clouds!
Mt. Wilson The 150-Foot Solar Tower Sunspot Drawing
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_draw.html
Mike
To: Jean Meeus,
Thank you for the calcification on the calculation of sunspot values. I will check on the 3 to 5 August 2007 dates you referenced for counts below 11. Are there any other dates which dates which may be of interest or online examples? I would like them for future reference. I can turn one of these animations around within a few minutes and would appreciate as much background material as I can lay my hands on. I suspect we are going to be doing this for much of 2008. Is there any good reference material available? I don’t want to become an astrophysicist but would like some basic background information on scoring sunspots.
NASA has an incredibly good image database available. I wonder if they have images with a higher resolution than 1024×1024?
Based on the two Blink Comparator graphics I provided for sunspot #990 what do you think of the score of 11 which NASA assigned? As I indicated in another post the sunspot #990 did not last much longer than 24 hours and was very difficult to track towards the end. SC24 sunspot #981 was much better defined and lasted longer.
If you are looking at the animations be sure to expand the image size in IE to a full 1024×1024. You can always stop an animation be pressing “Esc” and restart it with “F5”. On a restart you will have to resize the image again.
Mike
To: Jean Meeus,
I have looked at the SOHO data for August 3 to 5, 2007. Relative to SC24 #981 and #990, the August 3 to 5 sunspot is a single sport which is relatively large and well defined. By August 6 it had gown to three well defined spots. If the sunspot for August 3 to 5, 2007 was a 7, #990 should be a 1 or 2.
Over at solarcycle24.com they just increased the value for #990 from 11 to 12! The source of the change is Belgium which is reporting one group with two spots. I just looked at the SOHO images which are less than 10 minutes old and there is nothing there!
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
I am going to have to do some serious fact checking on this. This is becoming quite strange. I will upload some more Blinks in the morning. I am not buying any of this.
Mike
Maybe they believe that they can prevent the planet from cooling by artificially inflating the sunspot number.
To: Jean Meeus,
I have been checking on the 3 to 5 August 2007 dates you sighted as having a sunspot number of 7 for a single event and verified the accuracy of your report based on the SOHO images and sunspot numbers shown on this page and referenced as “DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS”
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2007
I have also found other, equally official, pages which report a value of 11 for the same dates, referenced as “SESC Sunspot Number”.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/old_indices/2007_DSD.txt
Clearly there are at minimum, two methods of calculating sunspot numbers which may not be in agreement or more likely being used for different purposes. We are trespassing on the reserve of a small private club and I am sure the club members understand the rules but we may not. As we are in a period of very low solar activity, care will be required when referencing anything called a “sunspot number” because every digit counts.
Over at SolarCycle24.com they use the abbreviation “SSN” which based on usage I now believe stands for “SESC Sunspot Number” not “SunSpot Number”. As I indicated, a small private club. I am starting to understand why values at this website are not in agreement with those at SWPC.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I have a lot of reading to do.
Mike
“Out, damn’d spot! out, I say!”
To Gary Gulrud and Michael Ronayne:
I don’t know what SESC numbers are. The numbers I gave for 3-5 August 2007 are the “SIDC Definitive International Sunspot Numbers”, also called Wolf numbers or Relative sunspot numbers. They belong to a series that started at Zurich, Switzerland, in the middle of the 19th century. For more information, see http://www.sidc.be.
For your information, here are the definitive numbers for August and September 2007.
0 on August 1-2,
7 on August 3-5,
8 on August 6-7,
9 on August 8-10,
8 on August 11-13,
0 on August 14-20,
9 on August 21,
8 on August 22-30,
17 on August 31,
14 on September 1,
8 on September 2-5,
0 on September 6-27,
9 on September 28-30.
From the daily numbers, monthly means are deduced, then smoothed monthly means and yearly means. It’s these yearly numbers that are generally used in graphs showing the evolution of the sunspot activity in the course of the years.
I think we might be missing some very important areas of discussion when we call the sun “quiet”. At minimum, the sun can be VERY destructive here on earth. Several damaging components of cosmic rays never reach planet earth when the sun is shooting its substance out on a daily, hourly, or second by second rate. But when it is seemingly not shooting anything out, it is actually sending all its nuclear power right down to the soil we stand on (or concrete, for those of you unfortunate enough not to live in northeast Oregon). I think the earth-bound measurements of the various components of cosmic rays during minimums are rich with potential cause/effect information. I wonder if a post can be generated regarding what the sun is capable of doing in its supposed slumber?
Now looks like a cycle 23 spot(s) are coming around. Should know in the next day or two.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_284/512/
We could be having quite a discussion about this ACTIVE sun! Take a look at the following:
http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=44222
An even better easier to read article:
http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/AboutDenmark/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/ClimateResearch/CosmicRaysAndClimate/
Amazingly, we don’t have a lot of measuring devices that look at solar minimum effects. It’s as if we are attracted by what is bright and shiny but iignore what is ominously quiet. The sun (and all the other suns out there), are nuclear devices. Ours protects us when it is active (and it has been VERY active this century, having doubled its protective shield). However, it now sleeps and our shield has been lowered. As a result we are being bombarded by not only our own sun’s stuff, but all the other stuff from other stars. I would REALLY love to get my hands on atmospheric aerosols (like water vapor, not from my hairspray) that are in the air since we started noticing the sun was about to take a snooze.